Thursday, September 3, 2020
Quality's Coming of Age in A Separate Peace Ã Ã Ã¢ Ã¢ The epic, A Separate Peace, by John Knowles, is the story about growing up of Gene Forrester. This tale is a flashback to the year 1943, when Gene is going to Devon School during his senior year and the late spring before it. Quality's childhood and inability make him sick furnished to manage circumstances that require development (Overview: A Separate Peace 2). Be that as it may, Gene is a devotee of Finny and along these lines picks up encounters that incite his improvement into adulthood. A portion of these encounters include: breaking Finny's leg, preparing for the 1944 Olympics, and slaughtering Finny. Through these three encounters Gene is compelled to develop out of his immature self and become a man. Ã Quality bumps an appendage of the tree he and Finny were remaining on, causing Finny to fall and break his leg. Quality's envy of Finny's flawlessness makes him have infantile sentiments of disdain and scorn. After Finny's leg was broken, Gene understood that there never was and would never have been any contention between (Knowles 51) him and Finny. Quality took a gander at himself and got aware of what a horrible, self-consumed companion he had been. Understanding there was no opposition made him dispose of most of his sentiments of envy. Disposing of these emotions caused him to grow up in light of the fact that he was done spending innumerable hours accepting an immature game was being played among Finny and him. Quality started to see a greater amount of Finny's decency and love towards all, causing him to endeavor to be progressively similar to Finny. Ã When Finny trains Gene for the 1944 Olympics, Gene turns out to be increasingly adult. Through Finny's training of Gene, Gene gets numerous qualities of the effectively grown-up Fi... ... period of Gene Forrester. Since Finny makes Gene grow up, we can understand that one must grow up to proceed onward throughout everyday life. In that procedure of growing up, a few people sway your life. This tale gives us how our character is essentially made by the individuals who are available in our lives; anyway we should not gauge our capacities against someone else (Overview: A Separate Peace 2). We are indicated how the effect of one individual can have an extraordinary effect. The decency in individuals is the thing that one ought to consistently detract from a relationship. This is appeared in the connection among Gene and Finny. The encounters Finny gives Gene cause him to grow up and improve as an individual as a result of them. Ã Sources Bryant, Hallman. A Separate Peace: the War Within. Boston: G.K. Lobby and Co, 1990. Knowles, John. A Separate Peace. New York: Macmillan, 1961. Ã Ã
Posted by Alfred Walker at 9:04 PM
Wednesday, August 26, 2020
Salem Telephone Company Case Solution Essay So as to improve their overall gain, Flores has recommended three choices as follows. Choice 1 is to build the cost to $1,000 every hour while decrease request by 30%; choice 2 is to diminish the cost to $600 every hour while increment request by 30%; alternative 3 is to expand income hours by up to 30% through expanding their advancement cost. Every choice will influence net gain in the accompanying manners: For alternative 1: Benefit 1 = 205 hours * $400 every hour + $1,000 every hour * (138 * 70%) hours Ã¢â¬ complete hours (205 + 138 * 70%) * variable expense $28.7 every hour Ã¢â¬ all out fixed cost 2,939= - ,994. 92 For alternative 2: Benefit 2 = 205(400) +600(138 * 130%)- (179.4 +205)*(28.7) - 212,939= - $34,331.28 For alternative 3: Benefit 3 =205(400) +800(179.4)- (205 + 179.4)*(28.7) - 212,939 = $1,548.72 Taking everything into account, for option1 and 2, both will diminish in overall gain. Alternative 1 will diminish overall gain by (- 30,383) (- 42,994.92) = $12,611.82, and choice 2 will diminish net gain by (- 30,383) (- 34,331.28) = $3,948.18. For option3, overall gain will increment to an advantage sum. In the event that the advancement cost is equivalent to or under 1548.72, this choice ought to be taken thought. Then again, if the advancement cost surpasses 1,548.72, the overall gain will transform into negative. In any case, as long as it is more productive than - $30,383, choice 3 is the ideal decision. Since choice 1 and 2 exacerbate their total compensation even and choice 3 expects them to spend almost no on advancement, there is a proposal to close SDS as opposed to keeping it. In any case, on the off chance that they close SDS, the adjustment in their total compensation will be: Display 5 They will spare expenses in support, power, etc, yet they will lose the lease benefit $8,000 if there is no other organization leases that floor. Plus, they have to re-appropriate and the redistributing cost will be 205 hours * $800 every hour = $164,000. Along these lines, as it is appeared in Exhibit 5, their additional expense of shutting SDS will be $94,356. On the off chance that they donÃ¢â¬â¢t lease the spot to different organizations, they will endure more misfortune than keep SDS. Therefore, they should keep SDS as opposed to shutting it. What they can improve is to utilize alternative 3, which is to build business income hours by up to 30% through putting more cash on advancement. This might be ridiculous provided that we investigate their advancement cost in March, we discover that they burned through $8,083 (expanded 15% contrasted with February) on advancement and they expanded business income hours by without a doubt, not many rates (just generally 2%). So as to control their expansion in advancement cost less than 1548.72, they have to increment just generally 20% of advancement expenses to arrive at a 30% expansion in business income hours. Expect the connection between advancement costs with business income hours is the thing that we saw in February and March (15% expansion in advancement cost gets a 2% expansion business income hours), they have to increment (30%/2%) * 15% = 225% in advancement costs, which would be 8083 * (1 + 225%) = 26,270. Under this supposition, overall gain of picking alternative 3 will end up being 1548.72 Ã¢â¬ 26,270 = - 24,721.28. All things considered, choice 3 would bring them least misfortune and it is the ideal decision.
Posted by Alfred Walker at 1:26 AM
Saturday, August 22, 2020
Resident Engagement being developed research - Essay Example Its motivation is to contribute in important manners to explicit open approach choices in a straightforward and responsible way. (Phillips, 2002) Around the period focusing 1970s, the various governments, particularly of the Western countries, all the more significantly thought of expanding the duties of the residents and step by step expanded and spread the use of the plans in different fields principally including the social and infrastructural bodies to address all the more profoundly the quintessential parts of training and wellbeing. Residents were urged to seriously take an interest and screen in numerous little formative ventures and related battles in their individual network areas.Ã Lack of considerable regular citizen inclusion at that period provoked numerous speculations to be created and examined at this very setting. There have been a few methodologies and point by point hypothetical examination and conversation with respect to writing of open contribution in formative undertakings of the administration. Numerous such perspectives were concentrated comprehensively and analyzed minutely to outline managerial approaches around the world of the world. One such view to comprehend the job of regular folks in achieving formative objectives was the neo-liberal market approach. The fundamental contention of the neo-liberal market approach is a consistently continued balance of the administration authority through an appropriate blend of privatization and decentralization strategies (Gaventa, 2007). In this specific system, the fundamental pundit is the regular folks are precisely.
Posted by Alfred Walker at 8:43 PM
Examination of an Angel Island sonnet - Essay Example It is evident the carvings and compositions are remaining proof showing the encounters of Chinese migrants and events at Angel station in San Francisco. The sonnets found at the station are the most sensational disclosures in American writing. Today, at any rate researchers are deciphering and deciphering sonnets over the world (Lai, Lim, and Yung 12). Cut on wooden structures by Chinese settlers who never became workers in America following Exclusion Act, the sonnets uncover the strange detainment of outsiders for a considerable length of time and months on the island anticipating freedom by American migration authorities (Lai, Lim, and Yung 20). Also, these sonnets uncovered the work conditions and financial conditions in California in the twentieth century. By giving a point by point record of the situation of Chinese outsiders in San Francisco, the assortment of sonnets addressed American belief systems of boundless and equivalent open door skimmed in the twentieth century. It is obvious the sonnets uncover different subjects not restricted to movement, distance, race, and work in America. A foreigner from Heungshan composed an u nmistakable sonnet that combines the encounters and events in San Francisco to exhibit a few subjects. The sonnet was converted into English by Lai, Lim and Yung (1991) and sorted out into writing. As indicated by the sonnet, Angel Island Immigration Station was a position of torment and trouble. The Chinese migrants were looking for work openings so as to win a living in America. The Exclusion Act in late twentieth century that disallowed expanded Chinese relocation prompted sufferings and issues. Numerous outsiders remained in unhygienic and woeful conditions anticipating leeway from movement authorities, and the carvings and works exhibit the harshness and disdain among migrants. Be that as it may, numerous Chinese outsiders suffered and withstood conditions at Angel Island Immigration
Posted by Alfred Walker at 6:29 AM
Friday, August 21, 2020
What Is a Republic versus a Democracy Understanding the Difference SAT/ACT Prep Online Guides and Tips On the off chance that you take a gander at the United States Pledge of Allegiance, youÃ¢â¬â¢ll see that it considers the United States a republic. It peruses: I vow loyalty to the banner of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one country under God, inseparable, with freedom and equity for all.Ã¢â¬ So I don't get that's meaning, precisely? Can the United States be both a vote based system and a republic? Furthermore, what is the distinction between a majority rules system and republic, at any rate? Things being what they are, there are unobtrusive, however significant, contrasts between a majority rules system and a republic, and that the definitions arenÃ¢â¬â¢t fundamentally unrelated. At the end of the day, itÃ¢â¬â¢s confounded. Be that as it may, donÃ¢â¬â¢t stress! Knowing the contrasts between a republic versus a vote based system is significant for huge amounts of AP tests, including both history tests (U.S. what's more, world) and both government and legislative issues tests (U.S. also, similar). ThatÃ¢â¬â¢s why weÃ¢â¬â¢ve set up this guide for you. Before the finish of this article, youÃ¢â¬â¢ll know the meanings of a majority rules system and a republic, how they work, the contrasts among them, and where the United States fits into the conversation. So letÃ¢â¬â¢s begin! What Is a Democracy? The term Ã¢â¬Å"democracyÃ¢â¬ originates from the mix of two Greek words: Ã¢â¬Å"demos,Ã¢â¬ meaning Ã¢â¬Å"the people,Ã¢â¬ and Ã¢â¬Å"kratia,Ã¢â¬ which implies Ã¢â¬Å"power or authority.Ã¢â¬ Thus, a popular government alludes to a sort of government where the ability to administer rests with a countryÃ¢â¬â¢s people instead of a decision family (a government) or a solitary individual (tyranny). That implies that residents control how their administration works, typically through democratic. The Origins of Democracy The term Ã¢â¬Å"democracyÃ¢â¬ first springs up in the fifth century BCE to allude to the legislature in Athens, Greece. Between 508 BCE and 322 BCE, Athenians represented themselves in what is presently alluded to as an unadulterated majority rule government. (DonÃ¢â¬â¢t worry...weÃ¢â¬â¢ll go into that somewhat later.) Antiquated Athenians didnÃ¢â¬â¢t have anybody to speak to them in government; rather, everybody had a voice-actually. Discussions on subjects of administration were held openly in what was alluded to as The Athenian Assembly, and each male Athenian resident had singular democratic rights. That, however qualified residents were given downtime of work and an allowance to help ensure each voice was heard! Through the Assembly, every voice could say something regarding each issue, and all laws and rules of administration were set up dependent on greater part rule. While this kind of popular government would in the end be supplanted by a progressively delegate type of government, the fundamental thought that administration works best when it's controlled by its residents would proceed to impact the administration of the majority of the Western world, including the United States. The 3 Major Types of Democracies With developing populaces and increasingly complex frameworks of government, the Athenian technique for one voice, one vote doesnÃ¢â¬â¢t consistently work. So as the world has changed, majority rule government has changed with it. Here are the three significant kinds of popular governments found on the planet today. Direct Democracy Otherwise called unadulterated popular government, direct majority rules system is vote based system in its most fundamental structure. Much the same as the Athenians at the Assembly, direct vote based system lets each certified individual shape strategy by making an immediate choice. As such, residents are legitimately engaged with the political procedure! In this framework, political choices are made dependent on what most of voters choose. Each certified individual makes a choice, and the class with the most number of votes wins. The advantages to an immediate majority rule government are that it lets every individual, paying little heed to class, race, or monetary position have a voice. Be that as it may, by and by, direct majority rule governments frequently avoid certain gatherings. For example, in old Athens, just male residents reserved the privilege to take an interest in direct majority rules system. Ladies, lawbreakers, and slaves-despite the fact that they were liable to AthensÃ¢â¬â¢ laws and strategies were denied a voice. Moreover, direct majority rule government doesnÃ¢â¬â¢t consistently function admirably for an enormous scope. ThatÃ¢â¬â¢s on the grounds that there are a staggering number of choices that should be made to keep governments running. Instances of Direct Democracy in real life Since direct majority rule government can be clumsy on the national level, there are not many nations that utilization it as an essential administrative framework. In any case, that doesnÃ¢â¬â¢t mean direct vote based system doesnÃ¢â¬â¢t exist any longer! Here are a few instances of where you can see direct majority rules system in real life. Switzerland: Switzerland, a nation of generally 8.2 million individuals, utilizes direct majority rule government to run its nearby, local, and central governments. Each resident beyond 18 years old says something regarding how the nation ought to be run, and in light of the fact that votes are so significant, they are held four times each year and booked a long time ahead of time. Likewise, as an immediate majority rules system Switzerland comes up short on a chosen Head of State. Rather, the nation has a Federal Council which is chosen by the Federal Assembly (which works like the Athenian Assembly) at regular intervals. Every year, a renewed individual from the Federal Council is chosen for fill in as president! Neighborhood Elections in the U.S.: Because the populaces are a lot littler, nearby, metropolitan, and province decisions regularly depend on direct majority rules system to ensure government is serving the desire of the individuals. Nearby laws and submissions are frequently set up for a dominant part vote where each vote tallies. State Elections in the U.S.: Fourteen states permit residents to structure enactment and put it up for a vote through what are called polling form activities. Each state lets an individual resident make a polling form activity, and on the off chance that it gets enough marks by means of appeal, it gets put on a statewide voting form where it passes by larger part vote. The catch? So as to go on the polling form, every activity must be managed protected by the state courts, as well! Delegate Democracy The second kind of vote based system is an agent majority rules system (here and there called circuitous popular government). In this arrangement of government, certain people are chosen to speak to the desire of the individuals. These individuals, frequently alluded to as chose authorities, are picked to decide for the benefit of a particular gathering of residents. These gatherings can be characterized from various perspectives. Now and then individuals are assembled by neighborhood, by city, by district, or even by area or state. The thought behind a delegate majority rules system is to smooth out the procedure of government. Since races where everybody says something are strategically troublesome, having few individuals speaking to the wants of the dominant part take into consideration a lot quicker dynamic. This is particularly significant when governments are speaking to an enormous number of individuals, and itÃ¢â¬â¢s one reason why numerous governments utilize aberrant majority rule government to work. In any case, delegate majority rules system accompanies disadvantages, as well. Probably the most concerning issue is that much of the time, agents arenÃ¢â¬â¢t required (by law, constitution, and so on.) to really speak to the desire of their constituents. TheyÃ¢â¬â¢re ready to settle on their own choices, which can imply that chosen authorities are progressively inclined to defilement. Furthermore, thereÃ¢â¬â¢s the issue of the vocal minority. Have you at any point heard the term, Ã¢â¬Å"the noisy wheel gets the greaseÃ¢â¬ ? It just implies that the individuals who whine the most intense are frequently the ones who get the most consideration. So some of the time a couple of individuals who gripe uproariously are confused with speaking to most of their locale. Instances of Representational Democracy in real life Since authentic majority rule government works best for a bigger scope, most Western governments work thusly (if the nation is popularity based, obviously). Here are a couple of instances of illustrative majority rules system in real life. The U.S. Assembly: The U.S. Assembly is a bureaucratic illustrative government, implying that the delegates who serve make laws that apply to the whole of the United States. The authoritative branch is part into two houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. In the Senate, each state chooses two individuals to speak to their inclinations on the national level. In the House of Representatives, the quantity of delegates from each state is controlled by populace, so greater states have more agents. In the two cases, all the agents are chosen by dominant part vote in their separate states. (Note: this is not the same as other delegate vote based systems, similar to the United Kingdom parliament, where one house is chosen and the other house is named by the Prime Minister or President.) U.S. State Legislatures: U.S. state assemblies work precisely like the government lawmaking body, just for a littler scope. Each state has both a senate and a place of agents, and the stateÃ¢â¬â¢s inhabitants choose delegates dependent on the areas they live in. This permits each stateÃ¢â¬â¢s occupants to have a state in how their state is represented. The Canadian Government: Like the United States, Canada holds well known races where a bunch of agents are picked to speak to the populace at both the commonplace and the national level. The chosen authorities serve in The House of Commons, which is like Congress in the United States. Each of CanadaÃ¢â¬â¢s 10 territories are likewise agent popular governments where chosen authorities speak to the desire of their provinceÃ¢â¬â¢s residents. Protected Democracy A protected vote based system is the third significant kind of vote based system in activity today. Established vote based systems are described by having structures set up that limit the intensity of the lion's share. Put another way, sacred majority rules systems have constitutions or other administering reports that help control the intensity of those chosen to office. To do this,
Posted by Alfred Walker at 6:25 PM
Wednesday, August 12, 2020
Not a Real Entry Last night, I was lying on my mattress somewhere near the precarious edge of the top bunk and feeling mildly superhero-esque in a thrill-seeking, daredevilish, almost-falling-out-of-bed sort of way. I remember vaguely attempting to fall asleep, having heard stories of people doing this at times as early as 2 AM (!). And then I woke up and it was 7:13 AM on Tuesday and I rolled out of bed and ran 3 miles and ate breakfast and walked to class and realized that electric fields sort of actually exist and dropped a class (Harmony and Counterpoint I) and added another class (Harmony and Counterpoint II) and signed up for an X-tra Special musicianship audition because I missed the actual auditions and trudged to the other side of campus and bought overpriced staff paper and suffered the pains of getting owned by the college bookstores price system and then snagged two free coupon books at the MIT bookstore instead of one to mitigate the obscene expensiveness of staff paper* and made a pear salad and harmonized a Bach chorale and plowed through linear algebra homework during a differential equations recitation and pontificated about furnaces with Edward 12 for 30 minutes and went to a lab meeting and started an e m problem set that had a lot of e and no m and ate Thai food at an advising group reunion and signed up to see Spring Awakening with my advising group in May and almost went square dancing with Donald Guy 12 who was carrying about 6 cans of soda in his coat pockets and instead stumbled home at 7:30 PM and finished reconstructing deconstructed fragments of Bach and checked mail** and switched differential recitation sections via MITs uber-convenient online course management system and then realized that I had harmonized the Bach chorale in the wrong key. *This is only acceptable if youre not an economics major. **Someone just regaled the dorm mailing list with an email querying, âAnyone have cool sunglasses I can borrow in the next 15 minutes?â Real blog entry coming soon to a theater near you. Or theatre, if youre on the wrong side of the Atlantic. In the meantime, I leave you with a taste of pictures to come: Bonus Challenge: Last week, Rebecca 12 concocted this resplendent magnum opus of cakery for a dorm potluck. Name the recipe, and Rebecca 12 will personally bake you a cake at CPW* after she kills me for promising this without her permission. *Should the winner be unable to come to CPW, an alternative prize will be arranged. Cryptic Hint With Bad Wordplay: The frosting does not mix with apples, nor is it the color that it appears to be.
Posted by Alfred Walker at 5:34 AM
Saturday, June 20, 2020
INTRODUCTION This research presents an analysis of the proponents and criticisms of the main leadership theories. According to Storey (2004), the study of leadership in organisations has evolved through the years with changing theories of leadership and leadership development. Storey (2004) identifies the main theories as trait theory, behavioural theories, situational and contingency theories, exchange and path-goal models, new leadership (charismatic and transformational theories), constructivist theory, leadership with learning and post-charismatic and post-transformational theories. A summary of these theories is shown in table 1 (Appendix 1). The research is structured as follows: section one presents theories focusing on leader characteristics or traits including great man theory and trait theory; section two presents theories based on leader behaviour and situational models and section three presents the new leadership theories including transformational and transactional theories. Great man theories According to Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991), great man leadership theories were popular in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Judge, Piccolo and Kosalka (2009: 855) state that the great man theory is attributed to Thomas Carlyle who proclaimed that Ã ¢Ã¢â ¬Ã âFor, as I take it, Universal History, the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is at bottom the History of the Great Men who have worked here. According to Eckmann (2005: 4), Carlyles argument was that heroes shape history through Ã ¢Ã¢â ¬Ã âthe vision of their intellect, the beauty of their art, the prowess of their leadership and, most important, their divine inspiration. Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) state that great man theories were based on the assumption that leadership qualities were inherited, particularly by upper class men. In other words, these theories asserted that great men were born, not made (Hoffman et al., 2011). Vroom and Jago (2007) refer to heroic concepts of leadership which they ar gue emerged with the great man theory of history whereby major historical events were assumed to be the work of great men with vision and genius. Hoffman et al (2011: 349) argue that great man theories fell out of favour Ã ¢Ã¢â ¬Ã âamid questions as to the evidentiary basis underlying disposition-leadership associations. Judge, Piccolo and Kosalka (2009) state that reviewers have labelled the approach as too simplistic, futile, dangerous and a product of self-delusion. Lieberson and OConnor (1972: 117) also criticise great man theories for failing to consider a leaders limits and state that Ã ¢Ã¢â ¬Ã âthe evidence indicates that the influence of single individuals is seldom as decisive as the great-man theory would lead one to believe. Trait theories Great man theories evolved into trait theories in the early 20th century (Judge et al., 2002; Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991). Proponents of these theories argue that leaders possess traits or characteristics that make them different from other people and give them leadership advantage. This assumption that leadership depends on the qualities of the leader makes trait theories seem similar to great man theories but trait theories differ because they do not assume that leadership is limited to a few heroic men (Judge et al, 2002). Researchers however, have failed to agree on what traits are universal and trait theories suffer from a lack of Ã ¢Ã¢â ¬Ã âa structure in describing personality leading to a wide range of traits being investigated under different labels (Judge et al, 2002: 766). For instance, Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) argue that the six traits that distinguish leaders from non-leaders include drive, desire to lead, honesty/integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability and business knowledge. On the other hand, House and Aditya (1997) propose four factors including achievement motivation, prosocial influence motivation, adjustment and self-confident. Mann (1959) includes masculinity, dominance, adjustment, conservatism and extroversion in his list of traits. It is clear, as shown in figure 1 below, that different researchers have proposed different traits and there is no consistency in trait theories. Figure 1: Past qualitative reviews of the traits of effective leaders ( Judge et al, 2002: 766) Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) state that no traits are universally associated with effective leadership and argue that situational factors are also influential. These researchers state that traits only provide the potential for leadership and additional factors including skills, vision and implanting the vision are necessary for effective leadership. Other researchers have also argued that trait theories have failed to consider situational nature of leadership (Zaccaro, 2007; Vroom and Jago, 2007). These researchers have argued that situational variables impact on leader behaviour, effectiveness and consequences. Behavioural theories According to Derue et al (2011) criticism of leader-trait paradigm has led to the development of behavioural theories of leadership which assume that leadership capability is not inherent, but can be learned. Storey (2004) states that important behavioural studies include Ohio State University, which is credited with developing the Leaders Behaviour Description Questionnaire, University of Michigan (Katz and Khan, 1978; Likert, 1961) and Blake and Mouton (1964). Behavioural theories as advocated by these researchers identified four styles of leadership behaviour: concern for tasks (production or output), concern for people, directive leadership and participative leadership. Blake and Mouton (1964) developed the Managerial Grid which identifies five theories of managerial behaviour which are based on two variables, concern for production and concern for people. The combination of these variables results in different styles of management as shown in figure 2 below. Each style is expr essed on a scale ranging from 1-9, with 1 representing minimal concern and 9 representing maximal concern. Blake and Mouton (1964) argue that it is possible for managers to learn in a classroom and revise their practices and procedures thereby moving towards an ideal 9, 9 (team management) organisational environment. Figure 2: Management Grid (source: https://cisvu.net/mod/page/view.php?id=1109) Bryman (2013) has criticised the Management Grid for its emphasis on one best way of managing organisations. This researcher also claims that empirical studies have produced mixed results on the effectiveness of the Grid and argues that there is need to have information on other variables such as management and organisation change programs before definitive conclusions can be made on the effectiveness of the model. Another criticism of behavioural theories is that they do not offer guidance on what constitutes effective leadership in different situations (Bolden, Gosling, Marturano and Dennison, 2003). Kilmann and Thomas (1977) have also criticised the validity and reliability of instruments used in behavioural theories and Vroom and Jago (2007: 19) also state that behavioural models advocated by the Ohio State University and the University of Michigan have never produced Ã ¢Ã¢â ¬Ã âa solid body of scientific evidence sufficient to guide practice. Additionally, these researchers also state that these theories neglected the significance of situational variables and their impacts on leadership behaviour. Contingency (situational) theories According to Gill (2011) contingency theories suggest there is no one best way of leadership because successful leaders use different styles depending on the nature of the situation and the followers. This means that effective leaders are flexible and have the cognitive ability to adopt a different leadership style for a given situation. Storey (2004) states that proponents of cognitive theories include Fiedler (1967), Vroom and Yetton (1973), Yukl (2002) and Hershey and Blanchard (1984). Other behavioural leadership theories include path-goal theory, leadership substitutes theory and normative contingency theory (McClesky, 2014). Fiedlers (1967) two factor model divides leaders into relationship motivated and task motivated groups and suggests that leaders should be placed in the situation which is favourable to their style. Hershey and Blanchard (1984) present four leadership styles including directive, consultative, participating and delegating which are related to the readiness (maturity) of followers, for instance, leaders will adopt a directive style in a situation where followers lack readiness or the ability and confidence to perform a task. As the employees gain ability and become more confident, the leader will adopt a participating and delegating style. In other words, the level of follower maturity (job and psychological) determines the correct style of leadership. Figure 3 below shows the situational leadership model. Figure 3: Situational leadership model (Blanchard, Zigarmi and Nelson, 1993: 26) Gill (2011) claims that contingency theories like Fiedlers (1967) model and path-goal theory which develops Fielders contingency theory have been criticised for inconsistent results and measuring problems. McClesky (2014) similarly states that situational leadership theory (Hershey and Blanchard, 1984) has flaws related to consistency, continuity and conformity. McClesky (2014) also states that research shows that there is no style of leadersh ip that is universally effective and leadership types were abstract and hard to identify. Lorsch (2010) argues that contingency theories are focused on leaderships in primary groups and ignore leadership in larger organisations. Lorsch (2010) also states that contingency theories assume that one type of leadership can fit all situations and this is not plausible, for instance, the leader of an army platoon would have different leadership challenges than a sales manager or a CEO or even a senior partner in a law firm. New leadership theories: transactional and transformational theories According to Storey (2004), the 1980s saw the development of new leadership theories promoting the concept of transformation, visionary, charismatic and inspirational leadership. Bass (1985, 1991) presents a model of transformation and transaction leadership which has three dimensions of transactional leadership, namely, contingent reward, management by exception (active) and management by exception passive) and four dimensions for transformation leadership, namely, charisma , inspiration, intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration. The characteristics of transformational and transactional leaders are shown in figure 4 below. Figure 4: Characteristics of transformational and transactional leaders (Bass, 1991: 22) Bass (1999: 10) defines transactional leadership as Ã ¢Ã¢â ¬Ã âthe exchange relationship between leader and follower to meet their own self interests. Kunhert and Lewis (1987) state that this simply means that transactional leaders give fol lowers something they want in return for leaders getting what they want. Bass (1999) states that this exchange may take the form of the leader clarifying through direction or participation what the follower needs to do in order to be rewarded for the effort (contingency reward) or taking an active or passive role in monitoring and correcting follower performance. Proponents of transformational theory including Bass (1985, 1991) and Avolio and Bass (1995) define transformational leadership in terms of the leaders effects on followers and argue that transformative leaders have exceptional influence over followers whose feelings of trust, admiration, trust and loyalty towards the leader motivates them to make self-sacrifices, commit to difficult objectives and achieve much more than is expected of them. Bass (1991) states that transformative leaders are able to achieve these results through behaviours including individualised consideration, intellectual stimulation, charisma and ins pirational motivation. Shamir, House and Arthur (1993) refer to transformation theories as charismatic theories and argue that they emphasise different leader behaviour than that emphasised by earlier theories of organisational leadership. These researchers state that while earlier theories focused on leader/follower exchange relationships, providing direction, support and reinforcement behaviours, charismatic theories emphasise symbolic leader behaviour, visionary and inspirational messages, non verbal communication and appeal to ideological values. Transactional leadership differs from transformational leadership in the leader/ follower exchange relationship, with transformational leadership inspiring followers to move beyond self interests to collective interests and to do more than was originally expected (Hartog, Muijen and Koopman, 1997). Bass (1999) argues that transformational leadership builds on from transactional leadership and states that Ã ¢Ã¢â ¬Ã âchanges in th e marketplace and workforce over the two decades have resulted in the need for leaders to become more transformational and less transactional if they were to remain effective (Bass, 1999: 9). Kunhert and Lewis (1987) state that Basss (1985) model of transactional and transformation leadership is based on the model developed by Burns (1978) and argue that this model lacks an explanation of the internal processes which lead to the development of the actions of transformational and transactional leaders, in other words, neither Burns (1978) or Bass (1985) has Ã ¢Ã¢â ¬Ã âprovided a framework for understanding the motivational states or personality differences that give rise to these two types of leadership (Kunhert and Lewis, 1987: 648). This is a weakness that has been identified by other researchers including Shamir, House and Arthur (1993) and Yukl (1999). Shamir, House and Arthur (1993) state that existing motivational theories such as exchange theories, reinforcement theori es and cognitive theories cannot be used to explain the claims that a variety of behaviours can transform follower behaviour from self-interests to collective interests. Yukl (1999) also states that weaknesses of transformational leadership theory includes ambiguous constructs, narrow focus on dyadic processes, omission of some relevant behaviours, insufficient specification of limiting conditions and a bias towards heroic conceptions of leadership. Rafferty and Griffin (2004) also argue that despite the popularity of transformational theories, there are concerns regarding the definition of the sub-dimensions of the model and these concerns have resulted in empirical research providing mixed support for the differentiation of the components of the model. Researchers have also highlighted problems with the operationalisation of the concepts of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) which has been developed to measure transformational leadership (Hartog, Muijen and Koopman, 19 97). CONCLUSION A review of leadership theories shows a progression from great man and trait theories to new leadership theories including transformation and transaction theories. Research shows that each of these theories has its strengths and weaknesses and there is no ideal leadership theory. REFERENCES Avolio, B. and Bass, B. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), pp.199-218. Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. (1991). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), pp.19-31 Bass, B. (1999). Two Decades of Research and Development in Transformational Leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), pp.9-32. Blake, R. and Mouton, J. (1964). The managerial grid: key orientations for achieving production through people. Houston, Tex.: Gulf Pub. Co. Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, D. and Nelson, R. (1993). Situational Leadership(R) After 25 Years: A Retrospective. Journal of Leadership Organizational Studies, 1(1), pp.21-36. Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A., Dennison, P. ( 2003, June). A review of leadership theory and competency frameworks. Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter. https://www2.fcsh.unl.pt/docentes/luisrodrigues/textos/Lideran%C3%A7a.pdf Bryman, A. (2013). Leadership and organizations. London: Routledge. Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Row. Derue, D., Nahrgang, J., Wellman, N. and Humphrey, S. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: an integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), pp.7-52 Eckmann, H. (2005). Great Man Theory: A personal account of attraction. [online] www.jameslconsulting.com. Available at: https://www.jameslconsulting.com/documents/GreatManTheory.pdf Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gill, R. (2011). Theory and practice of leadership. London: SAGE. Hersey, P. and Blanchard,, K. (1984). The situational leader. Center for Leadership Studies.House, R. and Aditya, R. ( 1997). The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis?. Journal of Management, 23(3), pp.409-473. Hartog, D., Muijen, J. and Koopman, P. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(1), pp.19-34. Hoffman, B., Woehr, D., Maldagen-Youngjohn, R. and Lyons, B. (2011). Great man or great myth? A quantitative review of the relationship between individual differences and leader effectiveness. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(2), pp.347-381. Judge, T., Bono, J., Ilies, R. and Gerhardt, M. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), pp.765-780. Judge, T., Piccolo, R. and Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), pp.855-875. Katz, D. and Kahn, R. (1978). The social psy chology of organizations. New York: Wiley. Kirkpatrick, S. and Locke, E. (1991). Leadership: do traits matter?. Executive, 5(2), pp.48-60. Kilmann, R. and Thomas, K. (1977). Developing a Forced-Choice Measure of Conflict-Handling Behavior: The Mode Instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37(2), pp.309-325. Kuhnert, K. and Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and Transformational Leadership: A Constructive/Developmental Analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), pp.648-657. Lieberson, S. and OConnor, J. (1972). Leadership and Organizational Performance: A Study of Large Corporations. American Sociological Review, 37(2), p.117. Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lorsch, J. W. (2010). A contingency theory of leadership. In N. Nohria, R. Khurana (Eds.), Handbook of leadership theory and practice (pp. 411-432). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press Mann, R. (1959). A review of the relationships between personality and pe rformance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56(4), pp.241-270. McCleskey, J. (2014). Emotional intelligence and leadership. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 22(1), pp.76-93. Rafferty, A. and Griffin, M. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(3), pp.329-354. Shamir, B., House, R. and Arthur, M. (1993). The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership: A Self-Concept Based Theory. Organization Science, 4(4), pp.577-594. Storey, J. (2004). Leadership in organizations. London: Routledge. Vroom, V. and Jago, A. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), pp.17-24. Vroom, V. and Yetton, P. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. [Pittsburgh]: University of Pittsburgh Press. Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), pp.285-305. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Zaccaro, S. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), pp.6-16. APPENDIX 1 Table 1 : Summary of main leadership theories (Storey, 2004)
Posted by Alfred Walker at 9:46 PM